[Lingtyp] (no subject)

[Christian Lehmann]

Am 30.05.20 um 17:55 schrieb Mattis List:
> What I still find problematic is that information on the
> direction of the boundary symbols is only implicitly encoded in another
> level of the annotation, as you correctly say.

I have been thinking about this. One might allow for optional additional 
specification of boundary symbols: Wherever a binary combination of 
morphs is asymmetric in the sense that one of them clearly depends on 
the other (where the concept of morphological dependency would have to 
be defined beforehand), it might be useful for some purposes as yours to 
add the direction of dependency to the boundary symbol, like this:

    root-»affix
    clitic«=word_form

You might also do a preparsing on an interlinearized text that lacks 
this specification and add it, on the basis of such information as I 
mentioned in my previous post.

Best,

Christian

-- 

Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
Rudolfstr. 4
99092 Erfurt
Deutschland

Tel.: 	+49/361/2113417
E-Post: 	christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
Web: 	https://www.christianlehmann.eu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20200530/37defa55/attachment.htm>